MovieChat Forums > ATM (2012) Discussion > QUESTION ABOUT JOSH PECK'S CHARACTER (sp...

QUESTION ABOUT JOSH PECK'S CHARACTER (spoilers)

posted 9 years ago by dtjoyce-13309
8 replies | jump to latest

Okay so this movie sucks and doesn't really make much sense, but there is something I have to ask to see if anyone has any plausible explanations.

Josh Peck's character Corey lied at least once, and probably twice.

The probable lie: he says his ATM card's magnetic strip is broken, which is why he couldn't access his account from the ATM. But eventually the other two characters ask him how he was able to enter the ATM building at all if his card doesn't work (since you need a card to open the door). This is a specific plot point that is brought up but never really resolved. The other guy hopes that Corey was just being cheap and lying about his card not being able to work because he didn't want to give out his money to the killer, but Corey just says "No...no" and then it's never brought up again.

The definite lie: early in the film the characters see the emergency fire sprinkler in the building and figure setting it off will alert the cops to come, and the girl specifically asks Corey for his lighter but Corey says he doesn't have one. But later, when the building is filling up with water, the other two find Corey's cigarettes and lighter in his jacket, which they use to start a fire and turn the sprinkler on.

So why did Corey lie?? I could buy him truly not understanding why his ATM card was being weird, letting him into the building but not letting him use the actual ATM. Or maybe he was just lying and being cheap, not wanting to give his money to the killer. With either of those scenarios though, it does just seem like sloppy filmmaking to bring up this plot point just to have it promptly forgotten and never brought up again or resolved.

But WHY lie about the lighter? I was sure they were setting up Corey to be in cahoots with the killer in some way, but no, Corey dies and there's nothing in the ending to suggest that he wasn't completely innocent. So why wouldn't he offer up his lighter early in the film to help set off the sprinkler??

You could say he was drunk and forgot he had a lighter on him, but that's a pretty *beep* explanation, he wasn't really that drunk, and again it feels like sloppy filmmaking for his character to specifically be asked for his lighter, claim he doesn't have one, then later on its discovered that he did have a lighter, without giving us any idea of why he would have lied about it.

[–] aryzap 9 years ago

He didn't have a lighter. The lighter belonged to the man they killed. He took his coat after they killed him. He didn't lie.
The whole ATM card thing was weird. I also thought there would be more to it, some reason why he said the card didn't work, but he still got in. Maybe he didn't have any money and was embarrassed to say so, so he lied and said the card didnt work.

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

The whole ATM card thing was weird. I also thought there would be more to it, some reason why he said the card didn't work, but he still got in.

The ATM wasn't locked. They just thought that's why the killer couldn't get in.

The real reason we learn at the end: he didn't want to appear on the security footage. That's why he stayed outside.

Can't stop the signal.

[–] maize-45680 9 years ago

He doesn't lie about the magnetic strip. And it is resolved. The door wasn't locked like they thought. So when Cory swipes his card to get in he doesn't think anything of it when the door is open when he pulls. But then his card strip is broken and when they realize that, they make the connection that the door must have been open so Cory was able to get in. This is why at the end of that conversation and they get quiet, the guy (David?) goes and pushes on the glass part of the door to see if it's open and it is.

[–] DreamOWD 9 years ago

Exactly. People did NOT pay attention to this movie at all. And they need to give the movie an extra 5 points because of it. They're saying the movie is frustrating when it's frustrating watching them point out non-problems with the movie that they forgot because they weren't paying attention.

They thought the movie was dumb when the movie turns out to be outsmarting some of these viewers. That's what's frustrating.

[–] leiastarkiller 9 years ago

Well the movie was pretty dumb but yes clearly some people weren't paying attention. They all stare at the door ominously when he said his card really didn't work. They guy slowly creeps up and gently pushes it open with his fingers to show it clearly was unlocked. Not sure how anyone possibly could've missed that.

Yes the lighter was the dead guys, but they showed them digging through his pockets earlier so not sure why they didn't find it and use it then.

[–] hanfan79 9 years ago

I agree that the movie showed the door wasn't locked. What I thought was kinda dumb was the guy pushing on it from the inside to test it out. I mean, it wouldn't be locked from the inside, right?

[–] annaoye 8 years ago

No, it would not be locked from the inside, but you would still need to push it open on the 'push' thingy. not on the glass itself. the fact that he only needed to push the glass of the door showed that the lock system of the whole door was completely broken, which made them believe that they were not safe inside, as the killer could come inside at any time.

[–] hanfan79 8 years ago

Oh, I see. I think I missed him pushing on the glass. ;)